Cited by 56

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Responsible AI and moral responsibility: a common appreciation

Tigard, Daniel W.·2021·AI and Ethics

Abstract

Responsibility is among the most widespread buzzwords in the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Yet, the term often remains unsubstantiated when employed in these important technological domains. Indeed, notions like ‘responsible AI’ and ‘responsible robotics’ may sound appealing, for they seem to convey a sense of moral goodness or ethical approval, thereby inciting psychological connections to self-regulation, social acceptance, or political correctness. For AI and ethics to come together in truly harmonious ways, we will need to work toward establishing a common appreciation. In this commentary, I breakdown three varieties of the term and invoke insights from the analytic ethics literature as a means of offering a robust understanding of moral responsibility in emerging technology. While I do not wish to accuse any parties of incorrect usage, my hope is that together researchers in AI and ethics can be better positioned to appreciate and to develop notions of responsibility for technological domains.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s43681-020-00009-0

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Bietti, E.: From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 210–219 (2020) · DOI
  2. Boden, M., Bryson, J., Caldwell, D., et al.: Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world. Connect. Sci. 29(2), 124–129 (2017) · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dignum, V.: Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Springer, New York (2019) · DOI · Paper page
  4. Illankoon, P., Tretten, P., Kumar, U.: Modelling human cognition of abnormal machine behaviour. Human Intell. Syst. Integr. 1(1), 3–26 (2019) · DOI
  5. Martin, K.: Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. J. Bus. Ethics 160(4), 835–850 (2019) · DOI · Paper page
  6. Mittelstadt, B.: ‘The doctor will not see you now’: the algorithmic displacement of virtuous medicine. In: Otto, P., Gräf, E. (eds.) 3TH1CS—The Reinvention of Ethics in the Digital Age. IRights Media, Berlin (2017)
  7. Murphy, R., Woods, D.D.: Beyond Asimov: the three laws of responsible robotics. IEEE Intell. Syst. 24(4), 14–20 (2009) · DOI
  8. Nyholm, S.: Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2020) · DOI
  9. Shoemaker, D.: Responsibility from the Margins. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015) · DOI
  10. Tigard, D.: Artificial moral responsibility: how we can and cannot hold machines responsible. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (forthcoming)
  11. Tigard, D.: There is no techno-responsibility gap. Philos. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7 · DOI
  12. Umbrello, S.: Imaginative value sensitive design: Using moral imagination theory to inform responsible technology design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 575–595 (2020) · DOI
  13. Van Oudheusden, M.: Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J. Responsib. Innov. 1(1), 67–86 (2014) · DOI
  14. van Wynsberghe, A., Donhauser, J.: The dawning of the ethics of environmental robots. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24(6), 1777–1800 (2018) · DOI
  15. Coeckelbergh, M.: Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26(4), 2051–2068 (2020) · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Tigard, D. W.
Venue
AI and Ethics
Published
2020-10-06
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
113-117
ISSN
  • 2730-5953
  • 2730-5961
Cited by
56
References
4
Language
en
Funders
Technische Universität München

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review